Matthew Fontaine Maury was a Bible believer who set about to find the paths of the seas based on the following verse. Psalms 8:8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Thank you! You do fascinating work and those images from the past are striking! I like Mexican and other South American histories and cultures. Kindest regards, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 14:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking over the index and I'm wondering, do you have a way you prefer to partition the book? - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help, and the more time you spend working on tables, I assure you, you will be capable of doing it too :) If you have any questions on what or how, please feel free to ask.

I made the front matter transclusion, and the rest can pretty much be set up from there by selecting on the links. I can also set up the illustration index to link to the images when they are transcluded if you like. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you can help too. <smile> I know that I can learn about making tables but I find them boring and I came to wikisource to work on transcribing books—not to learn about making tables. I find javascripts and cascading style sheets more interesting than making tables. But wikisource has a place for everyone to contribute. The book on Old Mexico isn't a book that I requested. It was just sitting there and I like the history of that area. Close to that area I placed detailed 2 volumes on wikisource with lots of accent marks within the text; "Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon" volumes 1 and 2. They were very fascinating for me but work nonetheless. Why place books on wikisource and have nobody to edit the text? Somebody needs to it if wikisource is to collect texts. This book on Old Mexico has a lot of images. Each image has to work properly. The cleaning and so forth is fast for me. The uploading and entering the correct data is slower. Then adding them into the pages properly takes still longer. It is a slow process but being a lover of photography I like to work on images too. So, working on lots of text in every small [box] (page) of a book and the images are very time consuming. When would I take time out to learn about tables in all of what I am now doing? I haven't finished the text and images yet. It's slow going. It is a matter of how much each of us wants to spend our time and I am there working every day and into the nights. Even with this I am still learning proper coding within the text—wiki code vs hyper–text markup language. Whatever you can do and are willing to do please do. I thank you for your help and time in all this. People in the future will also benefit from everyone's area of work on wikisource. I almost live on wikisource at this computer. I know I have a lot to learn and as soon as I learn it there will be developed different ways to do the work. I learned HTML by hand when it first came out. I have been on internet for many years now and have seen the changes that programs can do for websites whereas we had to them all by hand and that is outdated for the most part. The process is what changes but I work mostly with the text and images and unlike much of the processes they will not change aside from placing them into another language.—William Maury Morris IITalk 03:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I have seen you are getting close to hitting the expectations for promotion at Wikisource:Adminship. What are your thoughts on becoming an admin on Wikisource? If you wanted to be you could, if you don't want it that is fine too. JeepdaySock (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrator on Wikisource: When I saw your message I was actually stunned. I sat here just reading it and re-reading it. I have looked over the link you left about Administrators. My view is that to be an Administrator on Wikisource is one of the grandest honors possible on Wikisource. I do have a serious respect for such people with the technological know-how but I don't have those technological skills. I have never tried to learn all that exists in the skills area because editing text was always my joy. I have thought over the question for several hours and only moments ago when I tried to pull a book into Wikisource and failed (so far) I decided that I am not qualified for such an elite position, or at least not at this point in time. It is a great honor to be trusted with a position as administrator and it is also an honor just being asked if one wants to become an administrator! However, I fully believe a person must be qualified for the position and again, I don't feel qualified. I sincerely do thank you for the offer though as it will always be an honor to me just to be asked. Most respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 09:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Technical skills are great to have, but the are not what makes an admin. It clear from my interactions with you that you have the most important quality of a potential admin; a desire to maintain Wikisource. Another important skill is people skills, you are always polite and courteous when dealing with other users. You have an ever increasing knowledge of Wikisource policies and practices. The only area I see that you really need more experience in is copyright. You can continue to learn more about WS policy by watching and/or participating in the discussions at, Wikisource:Scriptorium & Wikisource:Proposed deletions these are the two main areas where discussion of day to day operation of Wikisource occurs. Wikisource:Possible copyright violations is where we discuss copyright issues, by it's nature Wikisource's biggest hurdle is making sure that content meets the copyright requirements to be posted here. Copyright law is tough, and we don't have lawyers or courtrooms to give us answers. We are all just lay people who care about Wikisource, we do our best to work out the solutions. If you want to be an admin or not, I know you care about Wikisource, so I would encourage you to watch and participate at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. All the technical skills in the Wiki world will not make you a admin on Wikisource, but a good grasp of WS:WWI & WS:CV will. If/when you feel qualified and have a desire to be nominated let me know, I would be most pleased to nominate you for the position. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Jeepday(talk) 11:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I think (and hope) that it was only the Texas and Boys of the Fort files. The OCR for both of these skipped the apostrophes and when Stratemeyer wrote in "dialect" he fairly sprinkled the apostrophes around. I'm grateful that you are taking the time to work through and find the ones I've missed. I need to have a look and see if the files came from the same scanner into IA and then flag any other works through that scanner as needing extra care on my first pass through.

On a another matter, I finished tidying up that Mexico book a couple of weeks ago and have proposed it as a featured text. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it is only in the Texas book. I haven't looked at others recently but I'll take a look at the others. Yes, I know that you refined the Mexico book. That was a lot of work I saw you doing. My friend in Mexico city worked on the hardest part—those tables. I didn't know how to do those tables in code. I did the illustrations and text. Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just been through WikiProject and was surprised not to see a Southern/Confederate project, particularly since there's a huge set of Confederate Veteran works as well as the SHS. Would you like to start one or have I missed it? Chris55 (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you missed all three projects AdamBMorgan and I have been working on including placing all of those volumes on WS. William Maury Morris II (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Finally learned how to create a proper file (without a watermark) and uploaded it to IA HERE. I estimate it will take 24 hours to be processed. I will let you know when it's on the commons. — Ineuw talk 13:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that it is still the same file which has light brown pages because those are easy on my eyes. Stark white hurts my eyes in a short time. Inductiveload created a script for me at my request that allows for a color background when editing text but the book pages that we work from often are stark white. I was seriously about to quit WS until I found this book. Respectfully, Maury

The book is done and all transcluded, finished and ready to go, thanks to our hard work and help from Adam. Congratulations my friend!!!--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That is two books about old Mexico that we have completed together, including a "Featured Text", and we still have others to do as long as we want to continue. !Poco a poco! Muchas gracias mi amigo en la cuidad de Mexico :) —William Maury Morris IITalk 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked when I was alerted by your message and they do show on my tool-bar. That can save a lot of work and is no where near being "lazy". It must be wonderful to be able to do all that you are capable of and do for WS and her many people. Very Respectfuly, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 08:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maury, those two pages you just marked are duplicates of pages already in the file (which is presumably why they were marked as no text). The optimum management of this situation is to get the two pages deleted from the file - which means stopping work on the file until they're gone and the appropriate adjustments of the other pages are made (so that the pages already proofread/validated don't have to be done again. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Beeswaxcandle, whatever you say. I will not work on that volume until the pages are deleted -- but by whom and when? I will wait for AdamBMorgan because he set up that those volumes and we both have worked on them. It is his work that I am validating. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 23:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Maury, the icon looks like two tabs on computer browsers and this is why I chose it! It should be a representative icon of the current MotM task, which is "Main page and Community portal revision". The Main page and the Community portal are two pages that users open in browsers, so... If you find a better image, you're free to edit Template:Collaboration. Besides, all the three images in that section link to their description pages, because that's the standard on MediaWiki-powered sites. They could go somewhere else, but where?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no complaints with that. I just wanted to know the details of it because when I asked I didn't know. You have explained them and I thank you. —William Maury Morris IITalk 17:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly un-clickable images would be better, but it doesn't seem a major issue (the other two images have been linking to their own pages for years, and maybe no one has ever thought it is a problem).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

None of those images should be clickable. Other people just don't bother to get involved or don't care to mention it. I've been here since 2006 (Brother Officer) and I have never bothered to mention it before now. —William Maury Morris IITalk 00:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Those images either should not be clickable because they go nowhere or they should be clickable and link to important areas on en.WS Looking back through the archives for the main Page I saw where one person (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Sanbeg/df7 ) had "Featured Images" and it showed The Declaration of Independence. —William Maury Morris IITalk 01:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. Does this change require a prior discussion? No, I guess.

Will you ask an admin to perform the necessary edits? The pages to be edited are 123.

Images can be made un-clickable by using an empty "link" parameter; for example this code [[File:Acap.svg|15px|link=]] produces .--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for validating my work! If you would prefer it, I can clean up the formatting of the line breaks in the already done section. Or I can get back to proofreading. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Would you be willing to validate 30 pages of my work? The "In Memoriam" is very short and has been proofread and sitting for a long while. I will continue on some more validating of your work. It is a fair exchange. :) Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 03:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be pleased to. I haven't validated before so I might be back with some questions if I have any... MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just proofread the text and enter edit and click on the green square to Validate. It's very similar to proofreading and clicking on the yellow dot. I don't mind answering any questions you may have as long as I know the answer. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 03:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Should I remove the gap templates? When I was working in someone's else text with them they were removed as against the style guide? MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please remove them. I have learned more since that text. —William Maury Morris IITalk 04:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that page 14 was not a good scan. I saw they have a better version now on google books. Not sure how to replace it though. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Finished with In Memoriam. Thanks again for validating Goethe. I hope you found it interesting. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maury, hope this finds you as well as a box of fluffy ducks. User:RonSimpson contacted me in a panic thinking that everything he'd done was wrong, which is why I'm dropping you this note. I wonder if there was another way to communicate the problems with the pages you demoted? The particular issues are the sort of thing that Validation is for (along with gentle education of the user). Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Maury, I'm happy that you like my draft (I've made the icons un-clickable...). I had posted an unsuccessful proposal for adopting it to the Scriptorium, and probably I will open another due to your endorsement :). Regarding your latest comments, I don't think there's a lot of white space on the front page.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that you're so interested! I don't mind the backup, of course. Happy birthday for your son!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maury, Thanks for finishing off the American Indian book. It was on my list to get back to over the course of the month as I don't like leaving PotM works that close to finished. I can cross it off now. Much appreciated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a way of getting me the image files in a zip for Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon? I would like to help you with the OCR. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt, my reply is on your talk page. I inherited the books and typed in the text years ago. There was no need to scan pages as we do today. Kind regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 07:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just been reading through Scriptorium: Do you still need this series uploaded or is it already being handled? Moving files to Commons from the Internet Archive is easy enough (I don't have access to Hathi Trust and this looks a little long to download individual pages). The archive appears to have several sets. This 1865 revised edition looks good, for example. (I probably won't have much time to assist with the proofreading, however, as I already seem to have too many active projects on my hands.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(PS: As for the English/British thing, English (or Welsh/Scottish etc) is to British as Virginian (or Texan/Californian etc) is to American. England is part of Britain but Britain is more than just England, so a State is probably the closest US equivalent. It does get a bit more complicated — technically, for example, Ireland is part of the British Isles and therefore also British but then lots of countries are technically American. However, in general, Britain means the whole country and England just means the "L"-shaped bit of the largest island.)

Yes, that is volume 1 of 9 volumes totaled. After volume 1, I will decide whether to work on the other 8 volumes or not and yes, it would be page-by-page since I have no choice with HathiTrust. I do have access to it but I would prefer that you upload what you have shown above. If I manage to complete that many-pages volume then I will decide whether to go for the other volumes 2-9. I will take on all volumes if I can one-by-one uploaded here to wikisource as opposed to uploading all nine volumes that may be overwhelming. It would be grand to have all 9 volumes on en.ws -- the complete illustrated set.

Post Script: Thank you for the clarification on England and Britain. I should have known that and I suspect I am losing some of my memory from getting older. Most respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To get the words on different lines, use div tags—or p tags for a space between lines—instead of span tags. The HTML Color Picker can be used to find better color shades. Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Introduction – For Wikipedians" contains two links, not one. Is "Are you new to Wikisource? – Are you a Wikipedian?" (with questions) a better wording? That's the only possible choice that comes to my mind.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "Are you new to Wikisource? sounds good. There are people who would not know {Are you a Wikipedian?) what a "Wikipedian" is. -- Maury

Index:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu. I've only started the Index page as I write this, but all the early pages should be correctly numbered (at least to p.42 of the book). There is an interior "title page" that I'm not sure how to label, so I've temporarily marked it with "??"" until I or someone else figures out what to label it. You can go ahead and start adding the early pages, but hold off on the latter one's until I've done a little more for the Index page, so that the automagic page numbers will fill in correctly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer books about the oceans and sea-faring. The clippers racing and tea and spices are all so historical and are a joy to read. I don't much care for combat situations in reading. I will wait until the entire book is set-up before I mess something up. Thank you so much. That interior title may be a sub title. I'll work it out when I start editing the book. --Maury

One more thing: You've added </references> as a footer to every page, but I didn't see footnotes anywhere in the work when I was setting it up. You do know that the "references" footer is only required to display footnotes on a page, yes? [ No, I did not know. It has never been mentioned by anyone] Having it in there adds just a little bit of unnecessary size to every created page. A small amount when you're doing a single page, but it adds up over hundreds or thousands of pages to needless storage space used for something that isn't needed. [Place this information on the proper help page for other editors to be aware] --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I only added </references> after the system prompted me to add </references>. Yes, there is a page with footnotes. There is more than one page with footnotes. They should be easy to find since it would be colored yellow as proofread. At this point, the beginning, I don't know if there are more pages with </references> or not since I just started. Too, I have never seen opposition or complaint by anyone to adding </references>. This has been the situation for many years now. When I have asked others to set up a book for me to edit, </references> was usually added. I only very recently learned to add to add </references> becausen the system prompted me to do so upon adding one and not having </references>. Many times I have validated Billinghurst's works. On one occasion recently, about a month or two, I asked him on his talk page about the fact that he had no </references> because I was used to seeing them. He only wrote, <"Shrug...> and gave no explanation as you have given here. I have no desire to add </references> if it is not needed -- if the system does not prompt me to do so upon saving a page. It benefits me in no way to do so, it is in fact, quite the opposite, -- it is more to be done that isn't editing book pages which is what I like to do. Perhaps </references> can be added to just the pages that require and prompt me to do so while leaving the other pages without </references>? —William Maury Morris IITalk 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE for EncycloPetey re: </references> I have only started on this book but regardless here are two of the references you never saw:

I've now set up enough of the formatting in the Contents and Illustrations pages that you should be able to complete them by copying what I've already done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I most likely will continue onward as I have been today with editing text and then the image work before I ever work on Contents and Illustrations pages. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 20:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere apologies for my rant regarding variants on the theme of {{sic}}. I really was not having a go at you (or at least not intentionally so; upon reading what I wrote my first reaction was "Did I really write that? How condescending!") On the contrary I was trying to indicate (and obviously failing heroically!) the huge plethora of existing alternatives... and I am sure there are even more I have not come across.

Personally, I like {{SIC}}, as you can simply use it to mark an error, or to indicate both what is on the page and what it should have been (if you can figure it out reliably.) I see you are already doing this yourself.

I didn't mention this one in the Scriptorium entry; but you might also consider trying {{WiktGray}} (also has aliases {{wg}} and {{WiktGrey}}, whichever you prefer.) This template creates a link to Wiktionary, and better than half the time will locate a definition for an archaic spelling or term which has stumped me.

The other one of which I have made a fair bit of use is {{definition}}. I tend to use it to mark name contractions e.g. "{{definition|Robt.|Robert}}" which appears as "Robt."; which I though was a tidy way of marking these sort of things as interesting, but nonetheless I do not consider to be "errors." At least so far nobody has indicated this is a bad thing to do! Hope this makes sense.

I thank you for your good manners but there really is no reason to apologize for anything. I am surprised you thought otherwise. I wasn't bothered in any sort of negative way in what you wrote. You just wrote as "a matter of fact" and I took certainly saw nothing in that as being offensive to me nor anyone else. You posted good points, some of which I already knew and have worked with. I myself tend to be playful after editing serious materials. That's a relaxation on my part. I don't get upset over anything on-line easily and in fact that would be very rare. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 11:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That is equally kind of you. I obviously had not made it clear enough at the time, but the entire point of my comment had been intended to divert AdamBMorgan from producing yet another template when so many solutions already address some aspect or nearby concept to the "how to mark spelling errors" issue you originally raised.

To reinforce my point, I notice at least two more suggestions have been posted since my rant. That is a lot to choose from, and for the sake of your own sanity I am glad you have settled on an answer which works for you already! MODCHK (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Your point about no more templates is what came across to me when you first posted which is why I had no reason to feel offended. It takes a lot to offend me, I've been in the real world a long time and on Internet when it first started up before webpages and browsers. Too, I spent 7 years debating other professors on-line on the American Civil War aka War Between the States. Before that I was on many BBS'. So I am used to people on and off Internet. Here is my 1st book on Internet and the 1st one about the American Civil War on Internet. Note the date. Everything had to be in all ascii (plain text) in those days and placed on a FTP site. http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/civil_war_usa/D_H_Maury/

The only marking of spelling that I have done is about three or four {{sic}} marks as per Beeswaxcandle's suggestions to me. I have known him for a fairly long time now and I trust him as well as his knowledge. He is a well-mannered and very respectful person. So is AdamBMorgan, a very favorite administrator of mine who has helped me for years on WS now. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 01:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding whether the page numbers in Treasure Island should be in the "[8]" or "[ 8 ]" format, I have no strong feelings either way. I read it as the first version but it could be the second. If you want to change them, feel free. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nay! I have no desire to change all of those pages. My statement was more out of curiosity for myself and my own future work should I myself encounter that situation so I would know which to use from the beginning of a work. Most respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure I can do some validating of Southern Historical Society. I'll have to stop the validation I'm doing on The Varieties of Religious Experiences, but hey, you're asking. --Legofan94 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

hey Maury, I understand. I'm willing and able to validate your edits. Considering your devotion to the memories of these veterans, I don't think you'll have many to change. I'm a southerner myself, so I understand your desire that this viewpoint be preserved. honestly, I don't see this as being so big of a deal. I can either blow through this like a 100 degree snowplow, or I can check out each page with a new set of eyes.It's your choice.

It's my fault I didn't inform you, I've run into some personal problems recently and have been unable to validate recently. Will try to contribute more often, but would be more comfortable if more users were working on the project too.--Legofan94 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's okay man, it is nobody's "fault." I agree it would be more comfortable if more users were working on the project. The project probably would be finished. What you do see there was mostly done by me -- alone -- so I definitely agree more users could help at least by "validating" what I have already done. I do a lot of validating for others on WS and have been for quite a while now. Validation is easy compared to the text work that is far more difficult and I have done volumes of that by myself on that project. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You are a visionary. You know the things of value and you work on them before any others ever, if ever, start to do the same or similar. —Maury (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's write the script here. You can already start adding something funny, since my wording always looks staid. But please don't add formatting, because I'm going to copy and paste it. Words in brackets are instructions for superimpositions. The Italian privacy laws restrict the use of people's portraits (especially minors' ones), so I hope you will be the speaker.

Erasmo, I have looked over the text and found it "staid". I am in agreement with you but not Virginia Woolf -- she's wrong.

If I try this I will have to write my own way and submit it to be included, changed, or discarded. The way I view this is that you write the cold facts which do have to be there. But I write to catch the imagination of readers and to create excitement. This is simply two different forms of writing akin to the likes of prose, descriptive, poetic, and other forms of writing. I am also inclined to use dynamic images when possible. I _can_ write as you have done but in all honesty it is boring to me. As stated, they are all facts -- instructions -- but all instructions are not appealing to me although I am aware many people prefer them over anything else. These facts are similar to all facts. As stated, I go for the creativity, the imagination, and the concept of fun working on books as well as a dedication to saving the "lives" of old books. Too, I seek out people who have time on their hands such as people that are retired but have a lot of knowledge from their life but in their past exploits and enounters. I think you would do well with AdamBMorgan and perhaps George Orwell III. They both are more knowledgeable about the facts of Wikisource. Adam is especially good because he has imagination and works, in his spare time, on saving comics -- very unusual comics due to his wonderful imagination.

Out of courtesy, I should say I have read messages about this but haven't been able to contribute or comment (let alone follow the link to YouTube). I've been having a series of different connection problems since December and I currently only have internet access at work. That doesn't leave me much time and the computers here have very odd access filters (I've had pages blocked for "gaming", "gambling" and even "pornographic content"; even though I know they have none of that). When I have a proper internet connection again I should be able to comment further. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is informative but know that Lincoln is not revered by a lot of people in Southern states in this nation. This nation was divided by north and south and war eventually came -- a war that did not have to be. The south is where I live and my ancestry fought against the north. I can tell you a lot about Lincoln and his cabinet and his generals but none of it is good. So, his image shown on the new version of the newsletter is not pleasing to me nor is the linked speech he gave. —Maury (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your post on the Scriptorium.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, it is still there. :) —Maury (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Video: 10 Questions for Jimmy Wales (co-founder of Wikipedia) by TIME magazine

Thanks for the link. I switched to a questions and answer format. I'm going to include music and video effects.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the route I would take, questions and answers and calm/quiet music. You can also use several editor's submitted photograph, or a Cam Video from their computer. A collection of these things can then be selective. In another series you can video some shots of the Main Page, the Newsletter, and still later, How To Use Wikisource. —Maury (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that you and I have had a number of back-and-forth edits upon this page; and I want to reassure you I am (trying at least) not to alter any of your changes. The fact is a couple of technical issues have come up which I have written up and submitted to George Orwell III for his advice. I do not foresee my changing the page any more unless advised to the contrary, but that is not to say for you to hold off if you so wish.

Please let me know if you are interested in the outcome of enquiries (I don't believe they are likely to affect you in any way, but who knows yet?)

Yes, I know I have severely "gilded the lily" on this one, but in the course of my personal learning I hope you don't mind―too much!

Thank you, kathleen, but I already know about wikipedia. I edited there for about 6 years before working on wikisource and I still add tidbits on wikipedia once in a while. —Maury (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved the commentary portion of the Creating a YouTube Video to the corresponding Talk page if that is okay. In the process, a post you made was left out of my move, and I don't know where you would prefer to place the comment as things currently stand, so I will leave that up to you... It's okay by me if you wish for everything to be back as it was. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it, unless you want it moved... It looks as though you wrote it with that specific section in mind anyhow, in which case it is where it should be. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi William. I made a minor mess with the Picture Posters running headers as follows. At the very beginning I randomly proofread some pages/images and used {{smaller}} as in PICTURE POSTERS. to enclose the captions. Then, several other editors used the standard font size. To standardise, I will correct to whichever style you think is best. Please let me know what you think. — Ineuw talk 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ineuw, you already know which is best. Don't worry about what others think as better. They can and will always change it to what they think is best anyhow. They do the same to me whichever way I do use or don't use something. Let them go ahead. They'll change it to their way no matter what. I notice in your excellent, and I do mean "excellent", image work, that you standardize the image sizes and I do the same as you. In the Pictures Book we both usually use 400px but not always. *I* learn from you. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I see the work has just been completed. It's a great addition to our collection. Sorry I didn't do more on it, but I got distracted when I unexpectedly disappeared for that couple of weeks. I'm about to disappear again for a few weeks so I'll download it and read it while I'm off-line. I hope to see it nominated for Featured status. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done Maury. A great read. Moondyne (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the text got stuck at commons. I've gone across and kicked it a couple of times and it's fine now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope you didn't do that barefoot. <smile>

I just finished looking over some strange books that looks (a mess) as though someone copied a lot of material and just dumped it into en.WS The person uses an IP address. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the size of a kiwi's foot? Of course it was barefoot! And while Walter Scott is on my list of authors I will get around to at some point, I'm not really wanting to do them right now as I'm working on Anthony Trollope's Barchester Chronicles in amongst other things. sigh. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just stomped on your quotes. Didn't mean to; was unthinkingly clicking through to the next page and didn't realise it was already validated! :-) Do you normally do curly-quotes? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, those "curly-quotes" were not mine. I never use them on Wikisource. —Maury (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in a sailing adventure novel I've uploaded and started: Index:The Iron Pirate 1905.djvu. I plan to get the contents and first few pages done later today, but probably won't make working on the novel a high priority after that, as I already have several projects going. However, it looked like the sort of thing you'd enjoy, so I thought I'd mention it, in case you're interested. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, I am not keen on books of fiction but I love fiction in films. I will certainly help and already have started. I am working on my book, "Six Months in Mexico.". The Iron Pirate, whomever or whatever it is, had best become aware of iron pyrite (fool's gold) lest he take risks for nothing. :-) As always, very Respectively, —Maury (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I'm wondering if you might have time to deal with the illustrations in this work. At the moment they're all "raw image" and just need a little assistance. Once they're done we can cross this book off our list as complete. If you have neither time nor inclination, that's fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind but presently it appears that the source file is incorrect for those images. I need to look this over closer. The files shown here are too compressed which is why they look bad. —Maury (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, my partner is a botanist so I know something about flowers. Plate XXVII: Arbutus unedo common-name Strawberry tree; Plate XXI: Hare-bells; Plate XXII: Fox-glove and a fern of some sort; Plate XX: Striped flower is a carnation, not sure what the yellow flower is, the other's are Dianthus common-name Pinks; Plate XXIII: Convovulus, again not sure about the yellow flower (by the way I note that the colour in the original is cut off at the top and right side leaving just black); Plate XXIV: Thistle, not sure on the yellow (beginning to look like I don't notice yellow flowers in real life); Plate XXV: I'm not completely sure, but I think the red flowers are Fritillaria; Plate XVI: Tiger-lily and crocus; Plate XXVIII: The lower left-hand fruits are rose-hips; the middle are black-berries, I don't recognise the top scarlet fruits; Plate XII: blue/purple flowers are pimpernel, yellow flowers?; Plate XIII: Water-lilies. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That is really nice to know. I once knew about scientific nomenclature but it was too long ago (high school). I don't know but I believe most people prefer the common names. I knew some of the flowers by sight and certainly remember the common names you have mentioned but was not sure until you told me. I recall fox-glove from (I think) Alice in Wonderland. I recognized the thistle which I don't think of as a flower but rather a weed. I remembered the crocus because it comes up in early spring even in the last of snows in Virginia. There it is one of the first signs of spring. I know the black-berries very well. They are gathered and made into jam and canned for the winter delights for supper. My mother did this -- and I copied her in "canning" just to learn survival skills from her parent's farm. It was an excellent farm where all food was grown and where my grandfather cut timber to build two churches, a bridge across the mighty James River, his own tobacco barn, hay barn, chicken house and much more. There were 4 brothers in the same close area within a few hundred acres each. So, until the age of 7 years. When possible, I lived on my grand parent's farm and had farm chores to do like everyone else. My mother loved flowers and planted many kinds and I as a kid and later as an adult assisted her in planting flowers of all kinds. The images in the book are very pleasing to me. I used to take photos with my camera and mom placed them in "flower books" and labeled each flower. She was a nurse and took those flower books around to patients to make them feel happy seeing familiar sights because they were stuck in a hospital bed with one framed painting hanging on the wall to stare at. I seriously think the flower book we are working on should have their names added below the image. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Once we've got them all identified properly, I suggest we put the names in the alt-text at least. Could also try to create "hover-text" at various spots on each image. I'll hunt up how to do that tomorrow. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is best to use "alt" beneath the flower images as soon as you can collect the details of what the flowers are. Should we use scientific names or common names or both? If it comes down to just one I prefer to use the common names. —Maury (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the glass half full of water or half empty? In psych class I answered "both". It may make your statements "redundant" but it also reinforces and confirms your statements leading to the point of absolute accuracy by cross-referencing. I too saw that table when I finished working on the flower images and started reading text. My friend, we're both smart! <smile> —Maury (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, is there a good way to hyperlink the flower image to the plate numbers and have that show in the mainspace? i.e. image hyperlinked to PLATE III. —Maury (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've added descriptions to all the images in Commons (except the one George added for us a short while ago as that hasn't reached Commons yet). I'm not sure about hyperlinking the images back to the table of plates. However, we certainly want to link from the table and also from the first mention in the text to the plates. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

When I look at the pages in the Poe work (like this one) the dashes don't appear to have much of any padding, which is why I was using {{--}}. It is tough to tell on some of them, but either one that it should be, I would like for them to be consistent throughout the work. If you're going to validate the pages and change them to {{—}}, make sure to do it to all the pages (did I just volunteer you to validate the entire work?) Let me know though before changing them next time so we can talk and I can start to proofread using them or something.

I didn't change the padding myself (by hand) in any manner. When the pages using the "padding" gets "formatted" using shift-alt-x, like we always have done except recently, it is then that that those changes took place. Formatting as you know is the last thing we do on any given page and then we move to the next page never knowing the new style you use has changed. When I saw those changes I stopped formatting pages in that book. It is a matter of formatting changing the padding to what you saw. Otherwise I would have validated the entire book as I always do as in the case of Hesperian's Three volumes I have been working a lot on and those volumes, page by page as they are validated, show in the watchlist where we place comments of any changes we might make. You cannot use shift-alt-x to format on the pages you create. One would have to avoid all formatting as we have known it. Formatting a page was once a big deal but now one has problems with formatting a page in the manner you use with "padding". No page can be formatted as in the past. As stated, I stopped completely when I noticed a change after formatting pages. Still, I regret and apologize what has happened. The only thing I knew was to leave that book and format no more of the pages. I would never try to harm your work and I think you know this. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Maury! I have been off and on on Wikisource for the past few months, and just saw your message to my cousin, Tannertsf, to "come home." His real-life got much busier, since he got married and now has a kid, and a higher-paying but more working job. Basically, he won't be back.

But, fear not! I am willing to help in any projects/works you are doing here - I am voraciously searching for stuff to do right now. Just let me know! - Lucyrocks=) (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is great news hearing about Tannertsf, his son and marriage and his job! I regret that he won't be back, he is an excellent worker and a smart one. He helped me on several projects -- he taught me how to do things I did not know how to do when he was here. I feel he was badgered away but perhaps I am wrong in that feeling. He would start several projects and hop from one to another when bored with just one and I am exactly the same way with that. When some people take on large projects it just gets boring after a lot of editing and something new is desired. Any other undone works can be waiting to come back to. Jumping from one book to another is a "break" in editing for some people like Tannertsf and myself. I have validating I would love for you to work on. I do not believe anyone on this system can handle it. It takes a toughness, an inner strength, and a lot of determination. While I myself have done almost all proofreading people shy away from simple validating because it is so much text they cannot endure simple validating. It is less than the original 52 volumes of the Southern Historical Society Papers. The Southern Historical Society was started by former CSA Major General Dabney Herndon Maury after Lincoln invaded the South. That is part of why I miss Tannertsf -- he worked a lot on those volumes with me. So there sits volumes already proofread (the hard part) but not validated (the easiest part). I had all 52 volumes placed on fully searchable CD around 1994 and with a "Note" from me at the very beginning of that CD. Thousands were sold and thousands of dollars were made from those sales. They have been placed in the best of universities, libraries, Historical Associations, and sold overseas. Still, I meet people who have never heard of those volumes and yet they contain history written by Confederate officers, and civilians as to what they went through during the so-called "Civil War" -- but technically it was not a Civil War which is one government divided. Before Lincoln ever took office the Confederacy was already established and had its government. A great deal of our history, especially during 12 years of Reconstruction, be ye a northerner or a southerner, was taught by the victor and as the adage goes, to the victor goes the spoils of war. So Washington collected papers stolen from the south as well as submitted by the south to compile over 100 volumes of the "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion". Former Maj Gen Dabney Herndon Maury USA/CSA, nephew of Commodore Matthew Fontaine USN/CSN Maury got together southerners and started the Southern Historical Society. Had not Southern organizations like this been created and worked on long and hard then the full history, especially the Southern version, of that war, would be left to forgetfulness as time passed and people died down through many generations. Now, given all of this, are you interested in working on the Southern Historical Society's "Papers"? As I have stated, it takes inner strength to take on large projects. I have these volumes on WikiSource because people north or south still do not know enough about this nation's history. Too many get a one-sided viewpoint and never know there is another side to the story. Too many blindly just accept what comes easiest to them and yet it is a huge part of the history of the United States of America. Kindest regards to you and an overwhelming happiness you've told me about Tannertsf and his family! He is a good man and he will be a good husband and a good father. I am so pleased that he is happy. I am older and retired with sons and grandchildren.—Maury (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations! Tannertsf was a great help for me with beginning here. I would be very happy working on the SHSP's with you. Just to let you know, I do jump around a bit (doing page 34, then 58, then 234, etc.). I will also try (hopefully) to do a bit of proofing on later volumes as well as validation. Let me know if anything I do is wrong or looks weird. Thanks! - Lucyrocks=) (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Maury, hope you don't mind, I was just going over some pages from the Recent Changes page, when I happened over this section on Hesperian's talk page, and saw that your birthday was on 12 May. Well, it's a long time since May, but I thought I would come over and wish you a (rather belated) Happy Birthday! Sincerely—Clockery Fairfield(talk·contribs) 10:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Really, you know, I never thought of it that way. That's the value of good friends—they tell you things you don't know and probably never would've thought of knowing until they tell you. Sincerely—Clockery Fairfield(talk·.contribs) 05:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Maury. Thanks a lot. It's very nice to get appreciation from fellow WS users — especially if the user's not so sure that they're doing much useful work here . Also, it's nice to know people and make friends here on WS, even if they don't know you in real life, because then they won't judge you based on any of your real-life behaviour and all that. All they'll judge you on is your attitude towards them on the 'source. And of course, on what you do. After all, no-one's going to be very nice to you if you vandalise their user page. :) Hope you don't mind me going on like this. Sincerely—Clockery Fairfield (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maury, you must be a mind-reader. I was just coming here to ask you if you would mind validating that last page, and I find that you have already done it. Thank you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Thanks Maury for your work on The Last Cruise of the Spitfire. A sad story in a way with the deliberate loss of a fine old ship. I'm interested to note in this book and the Rover Boys' one as well the different spellings for two nautical terms. I'm used to "bo'sun" and "fo'c'sle" rather than "boatswain" and "forecastle". When I see the words fully spelt out I find they jar, and I see that Wiktionary gives the pronunciations as if abbreviated. I was wondering if you had any idea why the difference in these two words? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I learned the words in the Navy although I may have heard of them before that. If I just saw the words I wouldn't have known what a "fo'c'sle" was. It is the front of a ship and the rear is often called the "fantail" Many words are learned just by hearing and asking what it is such as bosun which is boatswain and that is a person. The difference is that one is for people (boatswain) and the other is the front (forecastle) of a ship. Most of my sea time was on a U. S. Destroyer where these are common terms. A "monkey's fist" is one of the more amusing terms. The USN likes to keep some of the old terms but we always spelled them correctly.--Maury

Hi Maury, the score extension has been fixed so that longer snippets of music can be added to pages. I'll look after those for this work for you as you and Raul don't need to learn how to create scores on top of everything else.

Do you read music? If you don't, we can see if Clockery or AngelPrincess are available to help.

If you do, just let me know of any problems and I'll see what I can do to fix them. That will just leave the missing images to fix for this work and it'll be another ticked off your ever-growing list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"The History of Yachting" that goes back to England circa 1500s-1700s. "Treatise on Navigation" can just sit while I get some work done on the books already well underway. I can also type pages in as I have already done with 2 or 3 of them (Preface) yesterday.

"Face to Face With the Mexicans".djvu/535 still needs a "score" —Maury (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, mine disappeared earlier today as well. I solved by going to Preferences/Gadgets and and turning on the second in the Editing Tools section "add a sidebar menu ..." Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I've put the audio for the whole song at the beginning of each song in the Page: namespace. This means that when looking at the transcluded Chapter XIX, the audio will (I hope) make sense. I've just got one to do, and it's being a nuisance. To work out how to fix it I will have to go much deeper in to the lilypond manual then I've yet been. Mind you, the next number to work on in Cox and Box (complete) is worse. I might go back to the Nursery Rhymes and Hymns after this. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Beezwaxcandle, by adding that old book's music you solidly brought the book, music, and me "to life"! That old book (I don't know how old the original music many be) work I have seen is now, after more than decades, are now exceptional! I am delighted to an extreme with that concept. I am familiar with voice and files this goes beyond any person reading Spanish words from a book or just seeing a music sheet--which I cannot do. I am now hearing music from long ago and far away from our past. How Glorious it all is!

(2nd) I am inspired to get back and work on my images once again. That book has 200 illustrations of very long ago. It can become one of best our books.

(3)As an aside I have had a fight with the New Zealand images in the New Zealand Flowers book but I am still working on it. No way could I upload all images due to a text layer needed. I decided not to trust my luck without that text layer. Situation now is removing all watermarks. The full book to download showed no page numbers during the process of downloading .pdf files. Their system also forced me to stop collecting often and required me to "wait five minutes" but I worked on what I had at those points. —Maury (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To download the djvu copy from IA, click on the HTTPS link at the bottom of the left "View the book" box of of any book This will take you to the index page of possible downloadable formats. Download the desired format - rename it and upload it to WikiCommons. Then, create the Index page by the same name on WS.

Is the DjVu program you're using LizardTech DjVu? If so it's now obselete, maybe you could try DjVuLibre Windows. I can't personally recommend it because I'm an iMac user (27" screen), and I hope you're not using Vista which is crap and what I used to have. It's also available for Mac and is what I'm using. The download page can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/djvu/files/ --kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologize for butting in here. I do use DjvuLibre on Windows and it's very good to read but haven't used it yet to split and merge. For PDF, I use "PSAM" (which I think means PDF Split and Merge. — Ineuw talk 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I'm not sure where in the process it's happened, but four of the plates have gone AWOL. Plates 11, 15, 26 and 33 are missing. Everything else is there and there are some nice images of some of my favourite plants. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Beez, the plates aren't showing on archives.org? I'll look into this in a short while but I just awoke and want to a little bit of work on the other book on New Zealand. It too is an interesting book. I have had an ignorance about New Zealand (and many other places in the world) but I am slowly getting rid of some of it through websites and these books.—Maury (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am starting to look over all plates. The first thing I notice is that the plates we have are not the high quality that I downloaded from HathTrust in .PDF files. It seems IA processing has caused each plate to have tiny ripples, background skidmarks, or whatever they are whereas the ones I have on my computer do not. I want to clean and upload each flower(plate) to Commons. From there I believe you can see the preferred images and I can also make sure all plates exist. This would have to be done for the book anyhow. I hope someone can insert them where the missing plates where are supposed to go. Since there are extra blank pages it seems they could be replaced with any missing plate. Please let me know if you want me to try something different. I am going to work on those flower image (plates) now.... —Maury (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thought there was something odd like that going on as the images were not your usual style. For inserting the missing images into the djvu file, we'll need to ask Ineuw or George for help there. It's not something I know how to do. I'm for my bed, enjoy your day. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, there were no other images in the original. But it's very possible that images are missing because of too may empty pages following one another. There should be no more than 3 between images and 2 between text.

I also mistakenly left RIOT image compressor in grayscale mode and this destroyed my work. Expect the color image replacements by late tomorrow EST.— Ineuw talk 10:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the plates 11, 15, 26 and 33. What format do "y'all" want them in? (color PNG?, color .JPG) or grayscale for consistency? Oh, I am just teasing you my friend, Ineuw.—Maury (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to hold off until I see what Ineuw is going to do with the images. He has announced them in the book's discussion area and accidentally uploaded them in grayscale but also states he will be back with color images. Therefore, I must wait to see what he does then I will know if I need to upload the former missing images. I do not know if Ineuw has access to HathiTrust —Maury (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The color replacements are also in .jpg format. Must use the same name and format as the original for a direct replacement. Otherwise it's a BIG mess. As for Hathi trust, I am no longer affiliated with any participating institution. So please upload the missing images. — Ineuw talk 16:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Ineuw the missing images of flowers so that he can name them and work with them as he has the others. He's right, it has been a "blooming" mess. Still, by all of us working together we can overcome problems. Such is the nature of all our editors on en.Wikisource. —Maury (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No wonder you were having difficulties with this template! I had typed in a bit of documentation, but — Dopey Dora that I am — had inadvertently followed the wrong link and had placed it in the template-sandbox area instead of the documentation area. Needless to say you would not have seen any of it!

I think all is fixed up now again, and I hope the accursed thing is behaving itself nicely for you.

Thank you for informing me about the statement on the talk-page of "Weather facts etc.". I believe I don't quite agree with the position, but of course I will act in accordance with the statement! Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maury! I am finally back on Wikisource. These past years have been CRAZY for me: a new teaching job, as well as raising my two kids (ages 8 and 2).

As I am sure you will ask, I was brought back to here because of my niece, who briefly inhabited this site as User:Mackenziemrk. She is long-gone (as any teenager would with this kind of "work") but talked to me over Christmas and encouraged me to go back on here.

I am willing to help you with anything - as always, I cannot dedicate an entire day(s) on this, but can do a good amount of work. I left SO much on the table when I left that I eventually will dig through it and find the gold pieces to work on. - Tannertsf (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Turns out I could find something in your .js file that no longer applies (I hope). Awhile back, there was a patch to disable/cripple the wheelzoom of images in the Page: namespace. That whole thing works by using + or - buttons now primarily and, if you're lucky, by mouse-wheel after the fact. Either way, you didn't need that line in there any more so I took the liberty of removing it. I also removed some redundant blank spaces pading simple line returns for no good reason.

These were rather minor in scope & shouldn't be any problem moving forward but if there is - just let me know asap and I'll "undo" the changes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Deep-Sea Sounding and Dredging. A Description and Discussion of the Methods and Appliances used on board the Coast and Geodetic Survey Steamer Blake. By Charles D. Sigsbee, Lieutenant-Commander U. S. Navy. Washington: Government Printing-Office. 1880. Pp. 208.

Hi. I transcluded the book but you should float the text in the center using {{float-center}}, as I've done on the first page as an example. Otherwise it doesn't look very good. Also, check out the layout of the first double image page.— Ineuw talk 03:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to explain my recent reversion of Author:Joseph Wharton, I'm pretty sure Joseph Wharton is the right author. I initially only added the link because the header of Mexico pointed to that author page. Following your edit, I looked into it: all the information source, from Internet Archive to VIAF, point to the same author for the poem Mexico. However, I found a better source on Google Books: Joseph Wharton: Quaker Industrial Pioneer (1987) actually states outright that he wrote the poem (last paragraph on the linked page). If I have missed something, I'm happy to revert my reversion but it looks like the right person to me. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem; the dates all match. (I have to go right now, so I'll come back to this tomorrow.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Wharton the industrialist was the author of Mexico. Please check it out at the MOST authoritative source there is US Library of Congress.— Ineuw talk 02:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I was convinced, which should be obvious, that there were two men with the first and last name but with different birth and death dates. Briefly looking into my Watchlist and seeing Adam "merging" alerted me and I was in great haste to get back to something in the real world which is why I posted in caps without pausing. Therefore, I tried to "correct" what I thought was erroneous. I no longer have any idea as to where I saw any other date since it was a while back and I have been working on other things. I have looked over the statements above and any change is fine with me. BTW, there is no mention of the man's book on Mexico on Wikipedia. My sincere apologies and the book remains completed. —Maury (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You typically can't crop what appears to be excess whitespace in a PDF if some [hidden] object is "mapped" somewhere in that same space you're trying to eliminate. HathiTrust are dicks on purpose when it comes to this because they "map" the text-layer to the left margin then HIDES IT from normal display. Please See File:MauryTest3.png

Note the text[-layer] highlighted in the left pane under "Content" view (the view that shows Object Content) is micro-stored in the blue-rectangle residing in the left margin as seen in the normal [right] pane. Ideally, the text-layer would still be hidden but stored directly under the scanned content - word for word; line for line - not in any margin as HathiTrust does.

This way, HT forces you strip the watermark, the visible metadata it adds upon download AND the text-layer just so you have a 50-50 shot at properly trimming the excess whitespace. This makes for a lot of work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason for downloading this copy as a PDF is to extract the images as well from the same file. The PDF format exists on IA as well since they generate all formats, but the images will never be as high a quality as .JP2. Also, Hathi trust gets most of their material from IA.— Ineuw talk 02:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with your advice about utilizing IA before undertaking all this manual HT editing, the other assertions are somewhat conflated.

HathiTrust works with formal Libraries and Google because they share the same project funding - IA is not a source for HT at all (if anything, the opposite is true - IA scrapes material from HT).

And a fully "modified" PDF from HT will almost always produce superior JP2 images compared to the slap-dash University or GoogleBook scans uploaded to IA because HT improves upon the quality and completeness of material provided to them prior to making the work available on their site. Unfortunately once a "rare" work is hosted on HT, sister copies of that work in the public domain are frequently withdrawn by GoogleBooks et al. at the same time (forcing us into 1 page per download situation at best in those cases).

If we should be spending money on anything -it should be making all that needed HT/pdf modification automated somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is possible (I've seen similar stuff done) just not practical unless the User: owns a copy of Acrobat (or similar) at the same time. The reality is most PDF manipulation software is not "freeware" and not many folks who are fluent in scripting under said software are not the volunteer type. Still, I wish I could run a script and have all that junk done for me <sigh>. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. George, I thank you for that highly detailed explanation. I don't know why Hathi DIS-Trust would offer the files for free and yet do as they do.

(Pouring fuel upon a bonfire…)Well HathiTrust clearly haven't figured out co-operation between parties in disparate geographies… (Pre-emptive apologies as appropriate: if you feel insulted by this you happen to be by definition not one of those persons for whom this comment is intended!) Typical *** North-Central-American attitude! AuFCL (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw, I haven't tried to use a file like that. I have already been using files on Mexico the way you are suggesting. Our conversation on the phone today was just about the *possibility* of removing that "frame" from HT books and the ramifications of removing it, or so that is what I was thinking. Another option is to get a desired book from the library or from a library loan of another library if not a local library and scan it then share it with everyone via IA. I have done this. I don't use .pdf I use .djvu and am about to upload one soon. Too, don't be concerned about "butting in". If something needs to be stated then it needs to be stated. That's just working together to solve problems. My humble respects to both of you wizards of WikiSource. —Maury (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's wizard and the lowly apprentice. Very surprised that HT supplies IA, as I was sure that it's the opposite (Please look at the watermark of the book in discussion). I must check on that although it's not promising because "my sources" in San Francisco are not that forthcoming - They are more realistic about the relationships between Google and non-profits. I also apologize for my assumption about the use of the .PDF. Oh well, live and learn.— Ineuw talk 03:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm - watermark noted. Still, the source closest to the original scans is the U. of V. so I don't see how the funding relationship has changed. Of course, things might have changed since my last lesson on all this. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Those 2 tests do not matter. From HathiTrust all I have to do is remove extra border information and watermarks and use a .PDF or all of the pages as .jpgs saved into a .pdf for a complete book that can be placed on IA to have a djvu file derived. I have done this on three books now on that are presently en.ws as my own 3 different types of tests. —Maury (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I've transcluded most of this book. (Looks fun and I've just put it on my shortlist to read soon.) However I'm not sure what to do with the Appendix. Do you have a vision of how it should look in the Mainspace? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, I saw what you were doing and when you were doing it so I must say that I was and I remain a bit stunned at the quality and speed of your work! I have never seen that until tonight/this morning. The Appendix was just a few words, a spoof on the readers. I have no idea at this point as to how it should look but since it was a comment on the last work of a famous author I do think it should exist in some form. If you can think of an idea feel free to do whatever you think is best. Thank you for polishing this book - it is a gem of illustrations and puns in historical literature. —Maury (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

NB: The Appendix itself is page 195 ( djvu/199) The editors who completed Nye's book just added Nye's last illustrations at the end of Nye's book —Maury (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I was seeing the images as a part of the Appendix rather than just the single page of text. I've done a transclusion of them all. See what you think. It will probably need tweaking, but that may need to happen in the Page: namespace. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting and here's something you might like to look at Category:The Salvation Army. Please note Articles of War—now known as The Soldiers Covenant—only applies to soldiers of the Army (as it's known by members) not Adherents. [Kathleen.wright5]

ResidentScholar, show me those "errors" so that I can believe you and correct those errors of my way. In any case I will not "speed-validate" again. In fact, I may simply stop validating even for friendly people who appreciate what they can change if there are errors. —Maury (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I just read your email. I do not think the "Index talk" namespace is appropriate for annotations. What I suggest is a "Show/Hide annotations" button in the main namespace, and annotations placed beside the text itself. You can also comment here.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maury, Thanks for the validation you have done here, much appreciated. I would prefer it if you left the curly quotes in place. I added a note to the formatting guides for the work when I started out to say, amongst other things, that the work uses curly quotes; I understand that the Wikisource style guide prefers straight quotes, but that is a suggestion, not a requirement. GreyHead (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello GreyHead, and you are certainly welcome for those few validations. But there is more to the situation. I love things like what you are doing and I would like to do many validations and read+learn while validating. When I used alt+x to format any page it makes those curly quotes change to straight quotes. I prefer the curly quotes too (plus indents) as the book shows. I always format a page and often find mistakes that way so I am stuck. I cannot validate the pages due to the quotes changing. I noticed the situation after I had validated and looked at my Watchlist. Then I went to your Index Talk page and read what you had written. It was then I deemed I had to stop on validating your wonderful and highly educational project.

Most Respectfully, Maury, former USN.

Hi Maury, No problem. I've written some notes - my own thoughts - on what would be helpful as validation on the Indian Bio talk page. I don't know about alt+x as a way to format pages (there are many things about WikiSource that I don't know.) One option might be to use that as a guide to spot errors, make a note of them and then cancel the format before re-editing. I suspect that running an automatic format on a proof-read page might not always be the most useful approach.

Hi Maury, Thanks for the note, I am aware of the Style Guide - also that it says at the head of the guide "These are not hard rules, and can be ignored where necessary." I did hunt around there looking for a reference to Alt-x or a requirement to format when validating but didn't find one. GreyHead (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you proofread a 200-500 page book and make no mistakes? Specifically without extra spaces on words such as example ; ? The use of the keys Alt+X removes all, or most all spaces. When a person uses smart quotes then the keys Alt and X cannot be employed because it turns smart quotes to typewriter quotes. So how would you format all pages properly with no extra spaces? This is why the alt and X keys are used. I do not know for positive but I think all smart quotes are changed to typewriter quotes at some point which is why it states, These are not hard rules, and can be ignored where necessary. I think it is merely a way not to offend those who use the smart quotes. Whether or not, what would you do to remove all unnecessary spaces on all pages through validations using Alt plus X ? However you do your book is fine with me. I was just validating for you and all works have to be validated. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually the answer to is: Yes I can remove all the unnecessary spaces - I have some macros that do all that, plus correcting a whole lot of other OCR errors that I have noticed. I am just curious about what alt-x is and what it does, it would be helpful if you could point me to some place it is documented.GreyHead (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that my recent adjustments to pages 5 and 6, although they looked O.K. on the proofread pages, in fact completely wrecked the end-result transcluded version (the columns did not flow/stack correctly crossing the 5/6 page boundary.) I have reworked the split again and think (hope?) I've got it right this time. Please pardon the disruption. AuFCL (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL, you are a very intelligent person and I have no doubts that if you make an error or not, you will look back, see what you did, and you will soon make corrections if need be. What you've done was done for all of Wikisource. I don't own that work. I just work as good as I can like you do. Kindest regards, Maury

I've proofread some more pages of this, but owing to some hostility on my talk page, I'm asking if this was project so to speak? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, that is one of my projects. I often work back and forth on a few projects and sometimes just validate pages others have proofread. I do not know what you mean by hostility on your talk page -- certainly nothing of that sort by me. Thank you for those validations. Kind regards as always, —Maury (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, I had just come online here when I saw the alert that a message had been left here. I wandered around and I see the situation. "Our Sister Republic" has the complex task of having missing pages added in. That task has to be handled by those who can handle that task and it is a informative and highly illustrated book worthy of keeping. All in all, I do not personally think it is something to argue [but stay away at this repairing point] about if only leaving the book as it was since it is missing a few pages out of the many completed. That Mexico book is under the task of being repaired by two excellent administrators here on Wikisource. That allows you to not be concerned about it any longer but thank you for pointing out the missing pages. I and others placed that book on WS and worked on it. Sometimes projects get very personal. It is that way with me as well but I wasn't the uploader of the book. All of us can and do make mistakes. Nobody saw the missing pages but you. What is done with the missing pages, what CAN be done, will be done. You do good work finding such mistakes. If the book cannot be corrected it can remain as is and the original file that was uploaded has been looked at and found to be missing those same pages you pointed out. Work on my book if you want to correct some mistakes or add some in by proof-reading Physical Geography of the Sea and its Meteorology.djvu Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I ran a test last night with a file that had just djvu p. 16 (p. 3 in the text itself) modified. It looked pretty good, so I have uploaded a file to commons which has all the pages modified. I have run into minor difficulties: A) the OCR button (which is, I presume, the correct way to reload the text of the page) will occasionally pop up, function once, then disappear never to be seen again. I have that preference checked in gadgets, is there anything else I should be doing? B) I see from the history that a bot initially populated the text. Would there be a way to re-run that bot and repopulate the text starting from, say djvu file/page 16 onwards? If you have time (and your OCR button works) perhaps you could load a couple of pages and see how it looks. The only one I have successfully updated is p. 16 (3 in the index I believe). Workarounds are welcome, and if you just want to point me at someone else to talk to about the bot option, please feel free. Best wishes, Dictioneer (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, quick update: I can get the OCR button to function more-or-less reliably if I navigate to the page directly from the index page. Not ideal, but it's a workaround. I've done a few more pages (I think I'm up to p. 9 in the index), so feel free to review some or all, or try the OCR button yourself (assuming it works better for you than it does for me). That's all for now. Dictioneer (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mpaa has uploaded the text for v. 35 and I've proofread about a dozen pages (100-112) that are ready for your validation. In the future, I'll do bigger batches before notifying you, but since this is our first collaboration and since there was more formatting involved than I expected, I figured it was better to get your feedback sooner and be better able to do it right on the subsequent pages. I'll keep an eye on your talk page and the individual page status, but feel free to let me know about mistakes, alternate formatting, etc. I am happy to follow your lead. Thanks, Dictioneer (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Done 100-112 is excellent in my humble opinion! There are a few things we do different as you will see. I too have to look up an example of something and I too will make mistakes. You use something like indent|25% but sometimes that makes a line that is too long. I learned here on wikisource, long ago, to use [rule|5em] and that #5 can be changed. That is a matter of trying various numbers to get the best possible line length by sight e.g. looking at "Show Preview" to see the line length. You probably can do similar by using 10% or less, I don't know because I have never tried it yet. The text that has little formatting is the easiest while naturally the text that needs a lot of formatting is the hardest but you did excellent both ways. I am not sure how much the bot did because I did not see the pages before you worked on them. -- Maury

You are probably the best person to ask how to handle erratum. Do you correct the error in the transcription and show the original text in the footnote, or do you leave the error intact and show the corrected text in the footnote? If you can, answer at Scriptorium. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There are often several mistakes {erratum) and I show them as the book shows it. However, I also employ "tooltip" for various situations. General John E. Foo becomes General John E. Foo. Hover the cursor over the underlined text or letter. In the many years I have been here there have been times when a mistake was so outlandish I just corrected the blasted thing. Serious readers and researchers know to look at the end of a book for errata. I do not like passing the same mistakes down through history anymore than you do. Further, I also use the full name. if known, at least once, when there are several initials before the surname as shown on my user page. Again, tooltip can be employed. A spelling correction can also use {sic}. Kindest regards, Maury

I have removed it now. I had it because it was a piece of family history giving me a little more information than I had. It also is a 2nd source to the same family history found in "A Huguenot's Sword". Thanks, --Maury

"I went immediately to fetch your dear mother, Anne Elizabeth Boursiquot, and her sister Elizabeth, and my niece Janette Forestier; the latter was my god-daughter, and I felt it incumbent upon me to provide for her safety."

If you are prepared to remove the highlighting on other pages, I can get on with some validations.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remove them all as you find them. I don't remember which pages they are on when I was proofreading. I have collected that information and placed it on my computer and elsewhere. --Maury

What I'd like to continue with, subject to your approval is OCR cleanup(and the inserted pages get flagged as non-proofread). As you can tell I'm fairly fast at correcting the more obvious OCR mis-recognitions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. I am interested in proofreading and images. I need to tell someone that I don't know how to transclude and have no interest in it. I am even slower now because I had a slight stroke a few days ago my right hand (arm) is learning to get better with proofreading and working with the images. C'est la vive. It's like the keys are moving around. —Maury (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, William Morris Fontaine is. He is buried at the Fontaine cemetery at Beaverdam. If you knew Virginians and history of the Civil War, you would know of a lot of the now dead that were related. You would also know the importance of Beaverdam plantation. It was the last place JEB Stuart saw his wife. Edmund Fontaine was the father, plus owner of the home, plus owner of the railroad that took JEB Stuart's wife to him in Richmond as far as it could go. You would know of relatives at Moss Neck manor, and many more, since Va. was the capitol of the Confederacy. It's a bit like the Jewish and Polish people that were related when Hitler came invading. I have heard that the Jewish people are big on knowing their relatives and more so their ancestry long before Hitler came with his destruction, hate, and death. Virginians were closely related and so too were the Huguenots who came to this land for religious freedom. So were a lot of other groups.

Hi Maury, I've transcluded this work. As part of doing it, I've created a subpage for the plates: Physical Geography of the Sea and its Meteorology/Plates. However, this is not linked to anything else in the work. My suggestion would be to put anchors on the Plate headings (or captions) and then link to those anchors from the text. I see that there are also some references to other sections throughout the text. For ease of use, I would use anchors and links for these too. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi WMM. There is a gadget available that will show you within each Index the works that you can progress the status (one that I use regularly). Basically for Proofread works it will ring in red if they were proofread by someone else and you can validate, or ring in the amber colour if you proofread them. It takes a little while to step through an index page, however, if you give it a minute it will display per work what you are trying to do. — billinghurstsDrewth 03:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi billinghurst sDrewth. My "log in" is William Maury Morris II. I figured out how to use "Maury" to shorten my log in name and "Maury" leads to my complete user name.

Still, thanks for the tip above. I think I know what you mean. But that Mexico book I worked heavily on was not my upload nor was the Index anything I created. See user: Gumr51 & most likely user: Ineuw about both volumes for that. I just helped proofread and validated pages since it was 2 volumes, and a heavy load for one or two people to finish. —Maury (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Beeswaxcandle. I don't know of any user Djr. I looked and found a Djr13 but I don't do any projects with him/her. So, we two, s/he and I, have no specific way to work with the Southern Historical Society Papers (shsp). There are several people who have dropped by the SHSP volumes over time and did some pages. I think/thought I know them all.

I have been focused mostly on Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol.1 There are 9 volumes and each is heavily illustrated so they keep me busy.

MY alt+control+x does not function now. It went astray fairly recently and left me needing a proofread on my work which two others have been correcting. But my main concern is lots of high quality and historic images. I also have no watchlist so I see no other people posting there. I do go to the SHSP and look around every once in a while and if I find work done I do what I can if needed. Kindest regards, Maury

Whoops, I mixed @Dictioneer: and Djr13 up. I'll have a look and see if we can give you back alt-control-x. The loss was probably an unintended consequence of updating the Scripts. The watchlist I can't help with from the other side of the Pacific. If I was more local I would offer to pop down to see you and see if I could fix it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maury, have you got the alt-control-x back now? Pathoschild updated your common.js to the latest version of what he's been doing and we think it's working correctly, but we'd like to be sure. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the specifc comment as I think in the note you mention, I may have been referring to myself. I have no problems with what your doing on Cassell so far. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

cringe worthy - no, no link was retained because I had not planned on asking you anything. I could probably find it though. I saw it written and became more interested later. It was in a portion of a proofread. I say "portion" because it was, I believe, proofed again before I validated it. I think your statement was a reply to User:BD2412. It dawned on me that *perhaps* I was doing something wrong with the "text". This was yesterday. I just needed to know if I was creating a mess on something - text or images. You do not place all that you write to others on your talk page nor in email nor on another's talk page. I have no problems with that. My concern was and remains my own work. - Maury

Thanks for the explanation, There's now no need to dig up the specifics, as tracing back in my own memory, I seem to have over-reacted, for which I apologise in advance. You are doing nothing wrong as far as I can tell, and the very minor concern would be that sometimes the OCR misreads the column layout, meaning some blocks have to be "re-flowed" manually, this is of course a minor fix. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@William Maury Morris II:Created this image of the Page namespace editing & proofreading to explain the new tools which replace the old. "Alt-x" was a predecessor of these,0 but now is centralized on the side panel and will probably be in the Gadgets sometimes in the near future.

The clock gadget is recommended because it's a very good cache purging tool for the page you're on. Better than refreshing the web page. Otherwise it's of limited use for me because it only displays UTF time. To add this gadget it at the top of the pages, you need to go to your Preferences\Gadgets and select:

Clock and Purge A clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC and be clicked to purge the page in the Interface section. It's the second to the last gadget in that section.

Let me know what you want, and I will install it for you. — Ineuw talk 04:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have all of the above and have been using it. I tried using the OCR (when it 1st became available) and it didn't work so I tried going back to alt+x. I have the OCR checked in the preferences area as well. Thank you but that information isn't "new". There is an adage that covers this, "Don't fix it if it isn't broken", and alt+x worked fine for a very long time. I understand the need for progress though. Aside from this BWC got someone to work on the problem as attested to in statements above all of this. Thanks though. However, I am no longer worried about any of it.

Well, after 1 and a half years, I am back on this great site. My life has had so many changes that I will have to summarize them here: After 2014 I stopped teaching because although I loved it and the kids I taught, but wasn't seeing eye-to-eye on certain things and so left that particular system. Then I was unemployed for a bit while my wife and I figured out our next steps, which led us and our kids (who are 8 and 4 now) to move. She took up a new nursing job and I took a position at a real estate office, and have been here for about a year now and am loving it so far. Definitely a bit less work, but the liability remains (especially after the 2008 crash). Kids are enjoying school, and I find my free time more enjoyable now. Recently I had a thought of coming back here, and to my surprise nothing much had changed (which was both good and disappointing, I guess). The kids are getting a bit easier to parent now, although they are definitely figuring out how to backtalk to us. We have my wife's sister here nearby so she helps a lot too. Now I plan on going between this site and playing historical strategy games for my free time.

How have you been? What have you primarily been working with on here? I would be up for collaborating with you on works! - Tannertsf (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yo, Tannertsf, Sesame Street rocks! After years of working here I am finally bored. There are a couple of books I would like to place here but I hate working alone on a project. Before you disappear again, Welcome back, Kotter. —————— Maury

Hah I hope to not disappear again. I am open for suggestions - right now I am working with Beeswaxcandle on The Medieval Mind, where I proof and he validates. I have many works on my watchlist which most of them being complete projects since they are hardly worked on at all. But I will do anything, and in fact was looking for a 2nd project anyway. - Tannertsf (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Then welcome aboard Tannertsf. How soon will you start? --Maury

I noticed we were working on the same page at the same time. I will go ahead and validate it? Also, would you mind adding the picture files for the rest of Vol 1? - Tannertsf (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Yes, please validate it as long it is valid. I will be correcting a possible clash - Maury

If the 1st volume is ever completed including transcluded when all is complete it will be a miracle! In all honesty, I don’t believe it will be transcluded. I don’t know how. So, no use in "jumping the gun" with volume 1. Can you do the transclusion for volume 1? I am going to finish all of these hundreds of excellent images.-Maury

I can do the transclusion once we get V1 done. I have done it before on books like these. Also glad we are getting the other volumes as well - this is a fantastic series. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoever is willing and has the know-how - great! I just don’t have the know-how but I can handle all image work.—Maury (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside:I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks/Wikiversity would be interested in writing an additional volumes, to continue the work up to around 1918 (i.e the Versalies Treaty at the end of The Great War)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, if anyone wants to start one of more volumes, go ahead, all can be done by a multitude over time and people do have their preferences. There is plenty for everyone. I’ll just keep on volume 1. —Maury (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the addition of more modern times would be cool if done well. Also, I think I will wait till the pages have images in them, and then I can proof them. That way, Maury, we can double check each others work. I love going from the Not Proofread to Proofread. whereas with validation I tend to miss things. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

They are all good ideas. All colored red have images now. Anyway you fellows prefer is alright with me. I like the concept of viewing the past, present, and future even if it all was actually in our past. I keep going offline to do more images. As long as the text is done I can insert the images. Hey, Tannersf, ShakespeareFan00 is a real Brit so this project should really be fun for him. I am in the USA but it’s my heritage too. My true and humble respects for you for caring about this illustrated history of "Angland" (England) and her history for she is us and we are of her. —Maury (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Maury, I hope you are feeling better. I keep coming to this site in despair every day because ShakespeareFan has proofread more and more pages. I know it sounds tacky and childish, but I told him I would much prefer if he would let me do the red to yellow stage or the proofing of pages you have added the images too. I prefer Proofing over Validation as I have told you before, and I would like a system wherein you add the pictures, and then either you or ShakespeareFan could validate my proofed pages. - Tannertsf (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, validation is boring and that is why we do not have more works completed on Wikisource even though they may be claimed as finished by just transcluding and leaving the squares red, green, or yellow (not us -- others I have seen) We have 9 Volumes here and there is no reason why each of us cannot do whatever we prefer. There could be 9 different people here working on an entire volume each at the same time! I am feeling better - meds make me make all of my mistakes. Heck, go to volume 8 if you want. They all should be done. #:0) —Maury (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As you seem to be good with images, any chance of adding the ones is this work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You have helped me so I will try to help you. It will be awhile before Cassell’s Illustrated History of England v1 is fully transcluded before I do any images for v.2 —Maury (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You followed up on your first statement with the 2nd and we got another edit conflict. I’ll stay away from your area but I will still do text too. The page you refer to was naked as a Jaybird. No "inuse" no "purple color" to indicate it was to be your baby. So, I worked on it with an "inuse" saved, then I edited, removed "inuse", and saved page. - Maury

Ok. Sorry for being harsh, I just was a bit mad that my edits were lost. In my opinion, the edit conflict resolution for WS is not good because essentially whoever is fastest on their saves essentially "wins", i.e., their edits stay. For now on, I will mark a page as my own just so we can avoid conflicts like what happened earlier and know where we are proofing. All in good spirit. - Tannertsf (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tannertsf, I didn’t know you were being harsh. I have a very thick skin for that anyhow. To me it just seemed like you were upset and that happens to all of us. I lost edits too. I wrote a beautiful florid reply to the above as I stated but got an edit conflict when you posted again. I don’t get angry here that I am aware of. I used to debate a lot so I learned not to let things get me angry. I just reply or I will ignore. Why not validate all of my proofread pages? Near the bottom is ugly ole Queen (not the grand music group ;) what’s ’er name and no text. Eureka, a golden opportunity for validating to green-backs instead of yellow gold. You are correct though about a fast typist vs a slower (me) one but "if and only if" an "inuse" and/or page isn’t colored with "Purple Rain". - Maury

I think I did validate some of the mainly picture ones last night. Which page was she on? :) - Tannertsf (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just seek an ugly grumpy-looking one. All text abandoned her. Only a "Page" remains loyal. If you have done ’er in then you’ll know the page. I think all other women are beautiful. -- Maury

I think that occurred because of different editors but I don’t know for positive. What do you think the remedy would be? Are you willing to make the chosen corrections?--Maury

Well obviously I am going to make a lot of 'formatting' standardisation changes, if you are prepared to document one standard :)

I'm looking into doing the chapter headings as well in Volume 1 as well, so a standard for those would be appreicated as well. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My recomendation for image captions is {{c|{{smaller|<text>}}}} which seems to match the document. I can't tell if some captions are emboldened given the scan res. Sorry. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, I consider you to be very smart and I too once used smaller text for captions but then sometimes I made them bold to make up for loss in size. So, are you willing to make appropriate changes as you see them? There are still volumes 3-9 to do, can you handle the captions on any of those volumes? If you cannot tell if some captions are emboldened given the scan res then who would be willing to try to do what you say you cannot do? There is no person better that can do better than what you can do. --Maury

Sure. But I am getting some other proof-reading into a stable state at the moment. I'll take another look at this Thursday ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK I've reformatted the first 50 chapters of Volume I, but will puase to give you a chance to review the proposed format.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The smaller caption looks best - as long as the reader has good eyes. Let us stay with e.g. {{c|{{smaller|<text>}}}} for caption size. Are you going to finish the rest of the captions? --Maury

Yes. I'm also checing the chapter headings, and fixing some scan/typos I'm finding as I go. ho -> he tho -> the being the main ones I'm noticing. (Shame there isn't a 'robo-proofer' for obvious scan-errors that got missed.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as you are willing to make the changes the project is bettered. Believe me I am very aware of tho and other scan errors but I miss some while catching a lot.I want to make a request. When you go through a proofread that you did please don’t mark it as proofread when it needs re-proofreading and/or page formatting. Pretty please. It’s, well, UGH! When I come to them, it looks like someone dropped several puzzles. It isn’t proofread until it is really (fully) proofread and page is formatted (if possible). A validator should not do your proofread and I know from our years you can go fast or go through a project with near _perfection_. I have watched you at work and I have learned a lot from you including when we worked together on a project. I do thank you and all others who work on this project and perfect it about England. There is a lot of English history never known by myself and others. --Maury

I usually mark the OCR cleanup as 'Red' , but you were using that to mark pages for image insertion ( which I typicalyl mark as blue). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I remember now that you’ve told me. Okay, let us stay as is on volume 2 and if you have the desire go ahead of this volume 2 and take care of Volume 3. Would that be okay? I’m working without OCR application plus an Editor that will not format pages.-Maury

Just try not to do large amounts of Volume 3. I have particularly enjoyed this book, and enjoy formatting as well. And I don't want to see my future potential work done before I could get there. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bear in mind that re-checking Volume 1 is taking about 5mins per page, it will be a while before I am able to proceed with OCR cleanup on Volume 3.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If necessary, I' will keep checking Volume 1 until I know it's good:) Even this takes many years:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Right, Tanner and I have made some agreements before we started on any part of this project and during it. We also agreed to work together on these volumes with me focused upon inserting all images and some text while Tanner is to do most all of the text. Please do not get in Tanner’s way and I already try not to. If you, ShakespeareFan00, would come behind us perfecting any mistakes it would be best. OR how about taking on volume 9, then 8 and move in on us until we meet? There is plenty to do for everyone. We’re only on volume 2! —Maury (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse me whilst I go have a row with the wall, I've rechcked so many pages, that I wonder why I considered some of them proofread/validated in the first-place (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(sigh) - I am going to have to re-check the WHOLE of volume 1 for typos and scan errors. (cries) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, why do you write "(Caption format. Standardising arcoss all 9 volumes!)" when you are only on Volume 1 and far from "all 9 volumes"? It sounds like you are doing caption changes on all 9 volumes now. The other volumes with captions have not been touched. The caption format is something _you suggested_ and was agreed to as stated above being the use of "smaller" on captions in volume 1. You certainly have not done all 9 volumes. Sure, we have made mistakes but _captions_ done in volume 1 were not wrong because they were larger, whereas you have several mistakes while just writing above including "arcoss" ... &c. Please cease your rowing and crying. - Maury

Hmm... Fair... but I had now got to the stage of 'standardising' in Volume 2 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, when you get to the start of v.3 - v.9 feel free to use OCR on 3-9. Unless it in some way bothers Tanner. I will no longer use red to mark image insertions. You can use your preferred "blue" (purple)where a cell is image problematic. We should try to work things out together before a problem arises so we don’t clash. In fact, it might be a good idea if you set up all other volumes before you do any proofreading. I don’t want anyone to clash with Tanner. He reads the history to learn it as he edits as do I. There is no speed proofing in that. I too am reading as I work with the images. Okay? Thank you for all you have done thus far. - Maury

Well we aggreed as I understood it on the image format, the chapter headings I've also set up in a reasonably standard format..

I was using

{{quote|{{smaller block| ... }} }}

for quoted sections. I'll let you set up the front'matter and first pages as you know the formatting you used, which I don't.... etc. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

based on the 'speed-proofing' and worse speed-validation, I am now going a LOT slower on Volume 2 up to around pp240. which is where Tannerf (whose reading this page had reached.). I'm not finding many scan/typo/OCR errors in Vol.2 BTW, but I am carefully checking as evnn with 3 people working on a work, a couple of errors will slip in, (some that appear to be variant spellings or actual printer errors I've marked {{SIC}} per standing custom here on Wikisource. No work is ever going to be 100% free of typos, and this is something even really old printers and scribes knew :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I corrected some of your misspellings on Vol.3 page 4. Please validate those couple of proofread pages that you can. Have you run OCR for this volume? Please identify and mark "problematic" on all pages with missing images.--Maury

Sorry, but owing to some comments left on my Talk page concerning a work, which I proofread, I'm not going to continue with the work you asked me to look into for a bit. The issue is in effect a concern that when proof-reading I'm missing things. When I've read every single line in a work, this suggests that I lack the skill required. Maybe you could encourage the person that found the scan glitches to contribute instead?

You used x-smaller vs smaller, Do you want me to update other images to this, to stay consistent?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I know and I did it to look consistent with image size & caption but not to be consistent for all formatting that nobody sees in a book. No, please do not make all of them that way. Some image captions take up a lot more space than is needed. Those looked better to my eyes when I made them a tad smaller (x-smaller) which I don’t use unless I think they are necessary. There are probably no more than 6 used at the most and out of a necessity.-Maury

I believe the caption beneath that same image should read "Richard Duke of York claiming the Crown. (See page 605.)", not "…(…606)" as it currently does.

If these were deliberate (and not merely accidental) deviations from the scanned image then please pardon my interference. AuFCL (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

AuFCL, If <!-----wmm 2nd----> was used either I did not employ it or it was something I intended to remove. Yes, I sometimes use wmm2 when working on something but not often and it gets removed if I see it. In reference to images, I was working on images while others were coming behind me and were to have resized all images and place them in an appropriate area of text. The size I used was just to place them in the area or cell as I call it. The vertical lines that created were removed by me. We discussed in private not to have them when we began vol.1 After lots of edits and many more to go I personally didn’t want to see anymore columns and felt the volumes look better without them. Please do not employ anymore vertical lines in the text we have done and will do. If we had wanted them I would have employed them. However, thank you for your observations and helpfulness. -- Maury

I picked up on your removal of the vertical rules and columns and took that fact as an implied request not to insert any more.

However that was not the issue I was querying. There is a {{dhr|6}} beneath the image of "Richard Duke of York claiming the Crown" which seems excessively large (to me) when the final page is assembled.

Oh! I didn’t catch your intention. Yes, it is too much space not corrected. Would you please correct those things when you see them? --Maury

That is all. I was never invested in validating this work—and in fact the vast majority of corrections I have made have been on nominally already-validated pages. I am happy to leave you and your "team" to it if my involvement is unwanted.

Nobody has stated that your expertise isn’t wanted. In fact, I would like for you to proofread ShakespeareFan00’s edits and proofreads &c as well as get volume 3 as squared away as soon as possible.--Maury

(Upon further reflection I shall leave all of you strictly to yourselves—minimal malice intended.) AuFCL (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

One person desperately wants to do volume 2 alone - to read text as he proofreads. But there is volume 3 that needs work. As for "minimal malice"? I don’t know where you get that from. I have no malice. Please assist in the "grunt" work of proofreading and validating volume 3 at this point if you would like to work with us. After all, you are an Australian and I think saving English History would be more important to you than to me. Come and join in with us on vol.3 while I work on the images offline. --Maury

I will look into Vol 2. in the next few days. BTW if you want to proceed on images in other volumes you may find these useful,

{{cih_headl}} - Header for when the page number is on the left - Should always be subst:

{{cih_headr}} - Header for when the page number is on the right - Should always be subst:

{{cih_image}} - Although in Volume 3, I had been been using this directly, long-term it's intended to be subst.

{{cih_fixblock}} - This is a hackish solution to automatically fix up misarranged text blocks on pages with images, it is used carefully it will convert blocks into something more linear. You will of course still need tweak image positions and check paragraph breaks when using this. Owing to what it does this template obviously has to be subst.

Of course, you will be reading the attached documentation. I wrote these to make it easy to do stuff long-termShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You play with those, I don’t want them. I removed several (UGH! cih_images) when placing images in. I like the old way better. I know the images are missing because I haven’t put them in yet. But do it to please Billinghurst re: "What is the point?" Please do not touch the other volumes until we complete through volume 3. I don’t like the idea of confusion (to me or others) due to work getting scattered. --Maury

I wrote {{cih_image}} so I didn't have to type out the agreed style in full, The filename line you'd put in is the second parameter. And you then do a subst so essentially what was a bit long winded becomes {{subst:cih_image|Caption text|File line}} and the {{dhr}}'s are added automatically, as is the styling around the caption text. This is why templates are very useful :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My dear friend, Shakespeare, I am working on images. I just now am uploading them. I have no interest in what you are doing with those shortcuts. After all, you are the one applying them. I have 'hundreds of images to upload and I plan on getting them all done - Nine volumes worth. The way you were doing it in the past was perfect. It included the caption. It was very fast for me. The text was proofread and I just placed the images in position and resized if needed. and moved them if I saw they looked better. What may be a shortcut for you may be a longer way for me. We shall see with these next batch of images. Aside from this, I would have done a simple copy and paste of the older way. Again, we shall see as to _what’s easier for you and easier for me_, and all in all, we will learn, and we will agree or agree to disagree. I am very pleased with your work though no matter what anyone else thinks. Let me do my image work now. Grab a cold beer (if you drink beer, I don’t), and please work on those areas that you do so well on. I need to get these images online now. -- Maury

ShakespeareFan00, why are you now using this, "For various reasons not least the other contributors I was not going to mark as proofread." instead of proofreading the page and and marking it as proofread? It hinders (me) us other contributors. -Maury

I wasn't marking as proofread as I wasn't sure of having found every last scan error. If you think I'm setting too high a standard for myself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And now I've had a chance to re-read those, all marked up as proofred, you should be able to validate, ( and given in some cases I've read them at least twice there should be no typos/suprios or scan errors) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ShakespeareFan00, I sure would. However, I can do that by doing more text and fewer images. There is another situation in that I like working on factual history as opposed to fiction. I leave fiction for television and the cinema. Working on images attached to fiction is much the same. Films based on fact/fiction are good but I so often find myself looking up the facts. The Illustrated History of England in 9 volumes by John Cassell’s company teaches me *supposed* facts of England. Tom Sawyer is candy that’s probably based on some reality but fiction is tossed in. Therefore the images have not much interest to me. As an American I have read, heard, and seen in books and films off and on most of my life so it is not new. Too, I have led some of those parts in my life. It is too familiar to me. But the History of England is something I have never known although my wife is very familiar with it. I am very often asking her about the details and where she lived, worked, traveled, and what history happened there and especially since she has a master’s degree on the subject. I know so very little about England, the Kings and Queens &c. and yet most of my ancestry came from there. I get to learn what they had to go through in their lives in England, Scotland, and Wales. I wish you would come back to the volumes but I guess as a "Brit" you are perhaps tired of England too and it’s okay, I think I understand. Still, I will always remember you and all of the help you have given. Who can forget good ole Shakespeare! I have an illustrated book on him if you are ever interested. I would work on images of that but I will try not to burn out on the 9 Illustrated Volumes of ye olde Angland. Very Respectfully, Maury

Hi Maury, and thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. — Ineuw talk 18:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"That’s plural, "errors" . Have a good Thanksgiving my friend.--Maury

""I thought that there is only one "error" in my ways, Happy Thanksgiving. — Ineuw talk 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"error of your ways" or "’error’ in your ways"? You have many Popular Sigh-nce errors in your way. You in Canada and I in the USA both will have a Happy Thanksgiving here on Wikisource eating while we type, Oh Joy!

It's good to be back. Schoolwork's been getting to my head, and I was missing being here. How've you been? :) —C.F. 15:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Why, it’s good ole Hickory Dickory Clockery!, - my long ago and far away friend. I’ve always been sober. :} I never was a boozer, nor a smoker, so that’s how I’ve been and still am. I have been working towards 9 volumes of Cassell’s Illustrated History of England but I am wearing down fast now and am only on volume 4. I haven’t had a Birthday (how do you spell cake?) Cake like the last one where you took a bite out of it. That’s still petrifying. Happy Thanksgiving, Clockery. --Maury (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that cake. My sister has a birthday tomorrow (she's going to be 6), so I'll send you some more if I manage to get a picture of it.

Thanksgiving is tomorrow, today is Thanksgiving Eve. If you are in Canada, or not in Canada, people there do celebrate Thanksgiving but not on the same day as people do in the good ole USA. Some countries just don’t party enough! It is a big thing - almost as good as Christmas and some ways better - because there is no barrage of advertisements to buy things one doesn’t need. Ah, do you celebrate Christmas? In the summer or winter? I think Australians celebrate Kangaroo Day which led to Boxing Day. --Maury (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't have Thanksgiving in Australia, it's just another ordinary day.

I must have had Canada in mind. --Maury

In Australia the Salvation Army's main collecting periods are the Salvation Army Christmas Appeal in December and the Red Shield Appeal in May. In Australia Christmas is in Summer, so defintely no snow and the temperature can be upto 40c (104F) or even more. The next holidays in South Australia are Christmas Day, Boxing Day/Proclamation Day (December 26th) when South Australia was founded, usually on 28th, additional day 27th (2016 only). For 2017 New Years Day with additional day on 2nd January because New Years falls on a Sunday. Australia Day 26th January, when Captain Cook discovered Australia. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've also sent by email a few links you might like to look at. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)